I recall, many years ago, being aware of studies (no, I don't have citations) that demonstrated fairly conclusively that population growth is directly connected to prosperity. Truly poor people tend to have more children, for whatever reason. As soon as standards of living improve, reproduction rates go down. Some people may think (wrongly, in my opinion) that society can be improved through coercion and sanctions and punishments, but I believe the real answer lies in a more equitable distribution of wealth (yes, that old chestnut) so working people and beneficiaries receive a living wage. According to a recent report (RNZ) 10% of Kiwis now own 50% of the nation's wealth and the gap is growing. A fairer society would go a long way towards improving a whole host of thorny problems.

Because, once again, how dare people of decency have a level of concern for the situation in our own community and not wanting things to get worse. I mean, who cares so long as we are better than India, right?

Don't be ridiculous. Perhaps take a deep breath. No-one is suggesting we shouldn't be doing better than India. I am suggesting we are ALREADY doing CONSIDERABLY better than India. Could more be done, sure, always, however, to suggest we have a true poverty problem in New Zealand is just not true.

Anyways, I've seen countless discussions in these forums head this very way and I've neither the time or inclination to waste more time arguing about it, so I'm out!

I you read again my post said that the slums WILL become a reality I did NOT say they are now

Neither Labour nor National, nor Greens nor Maori party will do away with Welfare, so as long as that is true, the poverty in NZ will not in the foreseeable future match that of India or any of the other *truly* poor parts of the world.

I am not getting into a comparison thing with you, but my sister and my brother in law are both humanitarian workers in the poorer parts of the world for MANY years.

I believe both of them would (and have) laughed out loud at the concept of "poverty" (By Global Standards) in New Zealand.

I don't laugh at people not being able to feed and house themselves be it in NZ, India or the US.

Tell me do you believe that welfare will keep pace with the rising cost of housing? Are you prepared to pay 20% , 30% more taxes to fund it ?

MikeRetired IT Manager. The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

I you read again my post said that the slums WILL become a reality I did NOT say they are now

Neither Labour nor National, nor Greens nor Maori party will do away with Welfare, so as long as that is true, the poverty in NZ will not in the foreseeable future match that of India or any of the other *truly* poor parts of the world.

I am not getting into a comparison thing with you, but my sister and my brother in law are both humanitarian workers in the poorer parts of the world for MANY years.

I believe both of them would (and have) laughed out loud at the concept of "poverty" (By Global Standards) in New Zealand.

I don't laugh at people not being able to feed and house themselves be it in NZ, India or the US.

Tell me do you believe that welfare will keep pace with the rising cost of housing? Are you prepared to pay 20% , 30% more taxes to fund it ?

It's clear you are choosing to take what I wrote deliberately out of context (Which I find offensive). I think that's a poor way to argue your point. No point in continuing a conversation when someone is choosing that approach, so on that note, I'm out!

If you don't know the difference between a comparison being "laughable" and a situation being "funny" then I'd be pretty disappointed.

For the record, I disagree that it would take a 20% to 30% increase in taxes, but if you knew me even a little, you'd know I am NOT opposed to welfare (For those who truly need it), nor am I against a raise in taxes to support increased infrastructure or MEANINGFUL long-term solutions to welfare problems. I am opposed to just blindly throwing more money into the pit.

I agree. I still see no reason why having children should not be a licensed activity. Why should you not have to demonstrate you have an understanding of the responsibilities, the ability to provide and so on?

With the world population exploding, I cannot see how unrestricted breeding can continue, personally. Eventually it will have to be managed.

Don't worry, it will eventually. When we run out of food and water, and people starve to death by the millions (or Billions) and the population drops to a level we can sustain.

My prediction is the next major war will not be over Fossil fuels, it will be over water.

Humans are a particularly harmful type of parasite.

Quite some time ago, a year or two after we had moved here, I recall having a chat with my late father, who commented that "you have plenty of water and you can feed yourselves in NZ - there will come a time when that is worth more than all the gold in the world!"

Years of working in the problem has made me very passionate about it. I apologise if that passion is offensive it is not meant to be.

When you see 10, 20 people living in a garage, or in a 2 bedroom hovel you get a keen idea of the issue. The children seriously ill with preventable illnesses, going to school with empty stomachs with no raincoats or adequate footwear it tends to make one passionate about the problem.

If welfare is going to keep up and welfare includes social housing the considerable increases in funding will be required. If we don't the cost to our society will be much greater.

MikeRetired IT Manager. The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

1. Generosity is proportional. If I have 1,000 in the bank and gave 500, vs if I have 20,000,000 and gave 20,000

2. Gov giving money to everyone - where is the money going to come from? It's not like our govt is good at making money. Only knows how to waste it.

I think it's a bit rich to criticise Lorde for not giving more. How many would give anything? In any case, the cause she donated to was local, they were having trouble getting local businesses and other potential supporters interested, and their project to feed hungry children was in danger of dying unless they could raise $20,000. They set the amount, she met it. As far as I am concerned, she deserves all the credit she can get.

MikeB4: Years of working in the problem has made me very passionate about it. I apologise if that passion is offensive it is not meant to be.

When you see 10, 20 people living in a garage, or in a 2 bedroom hovel you get a keen idea of the issue. The children seriously ill with preventable illnesses, going to school with empty stomachs with no raincoats or adequate footwear it tends to make one passionate about the problem.

If welfare is going to keep up and welfare includes social housing the considerable increases in funding will be required. If we don't the cost to our society will be much greater.

No-one wants to see kids suffer, it's heart-breaking, however, I don't believe that NZ, a largely socialist country, is going to allow the poor in NZ to reach global poverty levels, EVER (Whilst we have the financial means to prevent it). I also don't believe the current levels of poverty (personally I don't think that word should be used) in NZ are even comparable to those in poorer countries.

I was raised with very little money, so not only have I seen it, I've lived it. Some parts of my younger years were fairly dire, though I am not prepared to get into that here. I have been the recipient of a benefit (for a short time whilst I got myself sorted out) as have some of my family (for long periods when I don't believe they had a true need).

I don't mind doing something about the problem, for those who have a true need (and for most welfare should be a temporary situation), but I don't believe just pouring money into a pit, treating symptoms is any sort of solution either.

I believe (Which you don't seem to unless I have misunderstood) that things are better than they were for many reasons. The current generation are beyond help, it's been identified I believe, but a LOT of effort and a LOT of money is being spent helping Children (my kids are in primary) understand

healthy eating, care of each other, care of themselves, anti-bullying, awareness of the impact we have on our planet. My son at 6 can explain clearly the food triangle, will self-moderate his junk food intake, and has plenty to say about his parents eating and (lack of) sleeping habits. We didn't teach him that stuff

as specifically and as completely as he understands it, he gets it at school.

I don't believe we will see the effects of that, until my son and his school-age friends reach the age they have children themselves, and the patterns get broken, but I do believe change is coming for the better in that regard.

1. Generosity is proportional. If I have 1,000 in the bank and gave 500, vs if I have 20,000,000 and gave 20,000

2. Gov giving money to everyone - where is the money going to come from? It's not like our govt is good at making money. Only knows how to waste it.

I think it's a bit rich to criticise Lorde for not giving more. How many would give anything? In any case, the cause she donated to was local, they were having trouble getting local businesses and other potential supporters interested, and their project to feed hungry children was in danger of dying unless they could raise $20,000. They set the amount, she met it. As far as I am concerned, she deserves all the credit she can get.

Actually, NZ as a country are astoundingly good at being charitable, made even more prevalent by the sites like give-a-little, which aren't recognised in statistics for "charity" I don't think.

I am not disagreeing with you about Lorde, I think it was generous (and it's not the only thing she has donated to either).

1. Generosity is proportional. If I have 1,000 in the bank and gave 500, vs if I have 20,000,000 and gave 20,000

2. Gov giving money to everyone - where is the money going to come from? It's not like our govt is good at making money. Only knows how to waste it.

I think it's a bit rich to criticise Lorde for not giving more. How many would give anything? In any case, the cause she donated to was local, they were having trouble getting local businesses and other potential supporters interested, and their project to feed hungry children was in danger of dying unless they could raise $20,000. They set the amount, she met it. As far as I am concerned, she deserves all the credit she can get.

Apologies that it was seen that way. Didn't mean to criticize. It should be encouraged. How much a celebrity could have forked out is none of my business.

However it could be even better if the root cause is targeted. Throwing money at people who expect free money ain't gonna last. I'm not saying don't give. I don't know the answer.

I would not describe a society containing many selfish individuals with no sense of social responsibility for others less fortunate them themselves "well functioning" personally.

I won't automatically blame poor upbringing by their parents as reason for their greed and lack of empathy - tempting though that is - as such sociopathic behaviour can be the result of mental deficiency.

Ad hominem, somewhat.

Are you suggesting those of us on the autistic spectrum are mentally deficient?

Logic trumps empathy every time for many with AS conditions.

That's not ad hominen, at all.

As for ASD and use of "logic", that logical thought process should be based on facts - no?

Fact is that human beings are social creatures, so if you want to use logic, think about what behaviours might be needed for the good of the community you live in.

I don't think it was a press release. I think she just donated to an appeal and posted a brief message with her pledge. I think it was completely sincere. She may have made an error of judgement because she may now be besieged with begging letters and scams (I hope not) but it struck me very much as an ordinary person just wanting to help out, except she happens not to be so ordinary anymore. I think she is young and that is why she opened herself up in this way, which other celebrities probably wouldn't do. I don't think she merits criticism for wanting to help.

On reflection, my post read more harshly then I had intended. I wasn't wanting to diminish what she has done, or to insinuate in any way that it might have been a bad thing. I just wanted to contextualise it alongside the hundreds of thousands of other New Zealanders (>180,000 three years ago) who "contribute" similar amounts each and every year to Health & Welfare initiatives, and note that because of a lack of #celebrity the media don't give it a second thought.

I would just suggest that watching the recent program "Why am I?" about the Dunedin study would be a good idea to become a bit more informed about some of the issues discussed thus far in this thread.

Their data shows that the long term costs to society of children growing up in an unsafe environment are significant (obviously to the child but also to society as a whole). So whether it is the parent's 'fault' or whether it isn't, it makes sense that the state (from an investment or cost/benefit point of view) should ensure that children have as good a start in life as possible and ensure that they are adequately fed, housed and resourced.

I don't have a problem with a carrot and stick approach whereby parents/caregivers who are not living up to their responsibilities are punished in some way, but only to the degree that it would not ultimately end up punishing the children. My point is that blaming the parents doesn't actually solve the problem; and its solving the problem that is the most important bit.

Perhaps one of the most important things that study discloses in terms of human development is clarifying an anomaly with the old nature/nurture models.

While some gene markers may predispose individuals to certain negative social of health outcomes, those outcomes aren't set in stone from conception but are activated (or not) due to environment. (Variations in the MOAO gene and long terms outcomes related to early environment was an example).It destroys an argument that some people are "born bad" (despite superficially seeming to suggest the opposite), or "made bad" through choices made later in life - two individuals exposed to the same deprivation in early childhood can have very different outcomes - deprivation doesn't completely correlate with poor outcomes. Now correlation between gene markers and predisposition to certain outcomes is shown - subject to early environment. The outcomes for individuals with MOAO markers which would strongly predispose them to violent behaviour if they're subjected to deprivation in infancy and early childhood, may predispose them to desirable traits (determination, competitive drive to succeed etc - without having a "violent streak" at all) if the early environment is good. Of course there will be many other genes, relating to long-term behavioural and health outcomes.